Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Small hands a problem?
- Thread starter Shade13
- Start date
having big hands can be a benefit in some cases, but IMO being a good bass player has more to do with good feel, good tone, and the right notes at the right time. no worries, just go for it! 
- Oct 7, 2000
- 18,619
- 38,939
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Musicman basses
My hands/fingers are smaller than average, but I can still stretch farther than a lot of guitarists I know (with average to large hands).
Like mute said: so long as you have good technique, you shouldn't have any trouble.
Like mute said: so long as you have good technique, you shouldn't have any trouble.
That is small...I have small hands - smaller than anyone I know - and they are probably closer to 4 inches.
If they *really* are that small, I'd look into something like this
http://www.activemusician.com/item--MC.JR7MB
unless you can afford a custom instrument.
If you underestimated and your hands are like mine, you'll do fine - I use a 35" scale bass, generally. I often use forefinger and pinky to stretch 3 frets, which helps a lot.
2 inches? Is that an accurate measurement, or are you estimating? I know everyone's knee-jerk reaction is to say "small hands, no problem", but if you're palm is actually 2 inches across, I'd consider looking into short scale basses. Looking at my measuring tape, 2 inches would be about the size of my 8-year old's hand, and she has difficulty on regular scale guitars, let alone bass!
Where there is a will there is a way.
Andre Segovia the legendary classical guitarist had short stubby fingers that looked like ham hocks. There wasn't anything he couldn't play.
You try the standard techniques and see if they work for you, if they don't then you adjust and find what works for you. All that matters is the end result your sound.
Andre Segovia the legendary classical guitarist had short stubby fingers that looked like ham hocks. There wasn't anything he couldn't play.
You try the standard techniques and see if they work for you, if they don't then you adjust and find what works for you. All that matters is the end result your sound.
Gotcha! I was more amazed at how folks were saying no problem to 2 inches across! I don't think they fully read the post.
Now, at 2.9, you're still only in the 5th percentile for women's hands, and below the 1st percentile for men's hands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HandAnthropometry.JPG
I'd still recommend a short scale bass to at least start out on. It'll give you a better chance of getting the right techniques down. Go with what's comfortable, because you want to be able to put in a lot time with the instrument.
It's nothing to do with arm length, it's about finger reach.
The shorter scale would make it more comfortable for you to play with less shifting. I'm not saying it can't be done on a normal size bass- examples have been listed already of small handed players. I'm just saying, if you can come across a short scale bass- try it out.
The shorter scale would make it more comfortable for you to play with less shifting. I'm not saying it can't be done on a normal size bass- examples have been listed already of small handed players. I'm just saying, if you can come across a short scale bass- try it out.
You know, every thread like this has the same old thing. Someone insisting almost that a short scale bass is the answer to having small hands. The scale length of a bass is not the issue. A short scale bass might be preferable to someone once they have got correct technique, but it IS NOT the answer to correcting technical issues. Bad technique on a long scale will be the same bad technique on a short scale.
You know why people even ask about their hand size is because they don't have an acceptable technique and so they're failing. I think what these people are doing is looking for some other reason to blame for their failure besides them self.
As far as getting a smaller scale bass goes, after they pay for a smaller bass, they're still going to have the same "reach" problems because their technique is flawed. Except now, they're going to have the pleasure of pissing more money down the drain instead of accepting responsibility for their failure and either figure out how to overcome it or quit.
Besides, small scale basses sound like **** anyways.
The other problem is, folks don't read the details- or have such a trigger-happy reaction to the subject of small hands, they don't even try to measure out the sizes being discussed! For sure, if the OP's hand was 2 inches across, good technique wouldn't be enough. That's a half inch smaller than my 8 year old daughters hand, essentially infant size! Even at 2.9 inches, the corrected size, I still think a short scale neck would be more comfortable. I didn't say it' the only way to have proper technique. I'm talking about comfort, which leads to longer playing. And I'm also saying, as a beginner-to start off with. In other words, upgrade to regular scale after the technique's been honed on a more comfortable bass.
It's done on the upright, that's why they have 1/2 size. The whole violin family does it that way too, for that matter.
